The Emergence of Resilience in German Policy Making: An Anglo-Saxon Phenomenon?

  • Jonathan JosephEmail author


In this chapter it is argued that resilience is a strongly Anglo-Saxon idea which is, nonetheless, gaining influence in other countries, albeit in selected areas. Focusing on its emergence in two different areas of German policy making—national infrastructure protection and overseas disaster and humanitarian intervention—we here compare German understandings of resilience with the more established discourse in the UK and US. Here we will look at differences of emphasis in the German and Anglo-Saxon approaches to infrastructure resilience as well as identifying similarities, particularly in overseas intervention where an Anglo-Saxon approach is more widely accepted by the main actors in the field.


  1. Adger, W.N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24 (3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashdown, P. (2011). Humanitarian emergency response review. London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  3. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding & C. Folke (eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bujones, A., Kubitschek, K. J., Linakis, L. & McGirr, M. (2013). A framework for analyzing resilience in fragile and conflict-affected situations. Washington DC: USAID.Google Scholar
  5. BMZ. (2009). Promoting resilient states and constructive state-society relations – Legitimacy, transparency and accountability. Bonn: BMZ.Google Scholar
  6. BMZ. (2013). Strategy on transitional development assistance: Strengthening resilience – shaping transition. Bonn: BMZ.Google Scholar
  7. BMZ. (2014). Strategy on government-civil society cooperation in post-2015 development policy. Bonn: BMZ.Google Scholar
  8. Cabinet Office. (2010). Strategic framework and policy statement on improving the resilience of critical infrastructure. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  9. Cabinet Office. (2011). Strategic national framework on community resilience. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: the governance of complexity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Homeland Security. (2016). National disaster recovery framework 2016. Washington DC: FEMA.Google Scholar
  12. DFID. (2011a). Defining disaster resilience: What does it mean for DFID? London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  13. DFID. (2011b). Defining disaster resilience: A DFID approach paper. London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  14. DFID. (2011c). Humanitarian Emergency Response Review: UK Government Response. London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, C. (2009). Resilient nation. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  16. Federal Foreign Office. (2012). Strategy of the Federal Foreign Office for humanitarian assistance abroad. Berlin: Federal Foreign Office/ Auswärtiges Amt.Google Scholar
  17. Federal Ministry of Defence. (2016). White paper on German security policy and the future of the Bundeswehr. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  18. Federal Ministry of the Interior. (2008). Protecting critical infrastructures – Risk and crisis management: A guide for companies and government authorities. Berlin: Federal Ministry of the Interior.Google Scholar
  19. Federal Ministry of the Interior. (2009). National strategy for critical infrastructure protection (CIP Strategy). Berlin: Federal Ministry of the Interior.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  21. German Red Cross. (2014). The resilience framework of the German Red Cross strengthening resilience through the international cooperation of the GRC. Berlin: German Red Cross.Google Scholar
  22. Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1), 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Home Office. (2011). CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Joseph, J. (2016). Governing through failure and denial: The new resilience agenda. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (3), 370–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mosel, I. & Levine, S. (2014). Remaking the case for linking relief, rehabilitation and development: How LRRD can become a practically useful concept for assistance in difficult places. London: Humanitarian Policy Group/ BMZ.Google Scholar
  26. O’Malley, P. (2010). Resilient subjects: Uncertainty, warfare and liberalism. Economy and Society 39 (4), 488–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. USAID. (2012). Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis USAID Policy and Program Guidance. Washington: USAID.Google Scholar
  28. World Resources Institute in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, UnitedNations Environment Programme, and World Bank, World Resources. (2008). Roots of resilience – Growing the wealth of the poor. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Zebrowski, C. (2013). The nature of resilience. Resilience: International Practices, Policies and Discourses 1 (3), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univerity of SheffieldSheffieldEngland

Personalised recommendations